Review Article A Contribution of Beef to Human Health: A...

Review ArticleA Contribution of Beef to Human Health: A Review of the Roleof the Animal Production Systems

Dario Pighin,1,2,3 Adriana Pazos,1,3 Verónica Chamorro,1

Fernanda Paschetta,1 Sebastián Cunzolo,1,3 Fernanda Godoy,1 Valeria Messina,2,4

Anibal Pordomingo,5 and Gabriela Grigioni1,2,3

1Food Technology Institute-INTA, Moron, B1708WAB Buenos Aires, Argentina2The National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Rivadavia 1917, C1033AAJ Buenos Aires, Argentina3Moron University, Cabildo 134, Moron, B1708JPD Buenos Aires, Argentina4CINSO-CITEDEF, UNIDEF (Strategic I & D for Defense), CONICET-Ministry of Defense, Juan Bautista de la Salle 4970,Villa Martelli, B1603ALO Buenos Aires, Argentina5Experimental Station INTA Anguil, National Route, No. 5, Km. 580, 6326 La Pampa, Argentina

Correspondence should be addressed to Dario Pighin; [email protected]

Received 25 September 2015; Revised 11 December 2015; Accepted 24 December 2015

Academic Editor: Rosaria Marino

Copyright © 2016 Dario Pighin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Meat andmeat products constitute important source of protein, fat, and several functional compounds. Although beef consumptionmay implicate possible negative impacts on human health, its consumption can also contribute to human health. Quality traits ofbeef, as well as its nutritional properties, depend on animal genetics, feeding, livestock practices, and post mortem procedures.Available data show that emerging beef production systems are able to improve both, quality and nutritional traits of beef in asustainable way. In this context, Argentina’s actions are aimed at maximising beef beneficial effects and minimising its negativeimpact on human health, in a way of contributing to global food security.

1. Introduction

Meat is an important part of human diet with strong implica-tions in health, economy, and culture worldwide. Meat pro-duction involves numerous domestic species, depending onmany factors like religious and cultural beliefs, convenience,availability, and so forth [1].

It is well established that meat has several key nutritionalfactors, like lipids, proteins with high biological value, traceelements, and vitamins [2, 3]. Meat quality intrinsic charac-teristics such as colour, flavour, tenderness, texture, juiciness,and odour as well as its nutritional properties depend onanimal genetics, feeding, and livestock practices and on thepost mortem processes that take place during the conversionof muscle into meat [4].

Due to the stated reasons, beef consumption as part ofbalanced diets in developing regions will promote nutritionsecurity. Thomas et al. [5] stated the importance of animal

agriculture not only for the production of high qualityproteins but also for sustaining rural livelihoods and possiblycontributing to food security. Nevertheless, it is importantto remark that since energy and protein transformationefficiency in ruminants is very low, food security can beeffectively promoted only if feeds given to the animals are notin competition with humans.

The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food securityas existing “when all people at all times have access tosufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy andactive life.” Commonly, the concept of food security is definedas including both physical and economic access to food thatmeets people’s dietary needs as well as their food preferences.Food security is a complex sustainable development issue,linked to health throughmalnutrition, but also to sustainableeconomic development, environment, and trade.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) pointed outthat the quality of diets has also been improved. In developing

Hindawi Publishing Corporatione Scientific World JournalVolume 2016, Article ID 8681491, 10 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8681491

2 The Scientific World Journal

regions, several improvements were observed over the lasttwo decades. For example, per capita availability of fruits andvegetables, livestock products, and vegetable oils increasedby 90, 70, and 32 percent since 1990–92, respectively. A 20%increase in protein availability per person was also noted.FAO stated that these enhancements were not fully seenin Africa or Southern Asia. In these regions, diets remainimbalanced and heavily dependent on cereals and roots andtubers. These monotonous diets often comprised negligiblequantities of meat, fish, or ascorbic acid. As a consequence,they typically contained a preponderance of foods that inhibitferric absorption. It should be emphasized that absorptionof micronutrients is strongly influenced by the combinationof foods eaten in a given meal [6]. Moreover, increasing fatcontent of diets often facilitates absorption of provitamin A,carotenoids, and vitamin A.

Meat consumption may also represent some risks tohuman health. Depending on several factors, many reportswarn against its metabolic deleterious effects speciallylinked to cholesterol saturated fatty acids (SFA) levels. Lowpolyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) levels, or inappropriateSFA/PUFA or PUFA n-6/PUFA n-3, had been represented asan inconvenient in usual meat consumption.

Also, fresh meat is a highly perishable product dueto its biological composition. Several factors such as stor-age temperature, packing conditions, endogenous enzymes,moisture, light, and microorganisms can affect shelf life andfreshness. In this sense, meat processing and preservationstechnologies play essential roles in food security, in order tosupply the expanding populations with sufficient quantitiesof good-quality and affordable meat products.

Several authors have reported methods and technologiesto be applied in fresh meat with the aim of extending meatshelf life [7]. One of the common processes used in meatpreservation is concerned with inhibiting microbial spoilage,and applying these methods deteriorative changes such ascolour and oxidative process should be minimized [8]. Zhouand coauthors [7] presented an extended review comprisingcurrent methods and technologies for fresh meat preserva-tion, their applications, and implications for extending meatshelf life.

This review attempts to summarize the recent progressin scientific research regarding the effect of agriculturalpractices, with special focus on Argentina’s actions, on theimprovement of nutritional value and quality characteristicsof beef as a contribution to improve beef healthiness andglobal food security. The paper is organized in three sectionsthat provide an outline of the lipids and proteins in beefand an overview of beef production systems in Argentinaas a particular case for maximising its beneficial effects andminimising its negative impacts.

2. Lipids

2.1. Importance of Lipids in the Diet. In the last decades, therehas been an increased interest in ways to manipulate the fattyacid composition of meat, since it is seen to be amajor sourceof fat in the human diet. Human health recommendationsinclude a fat intake of 15–30% of total energy intake [9]. Since

the relative amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)and saturated fatty acids (SFA) seem to play a key role in ahealthy and balanced diet, a fatty acid intake up to 10% ofsaturated fatty acids (SFA) and a ratio of PUFA to SFA (P : Sratio) above 0.4 are recommended. Among PUFA, the ration-6 : n-3 should be under 4 [10].

Since SFA, specially 12:0, 14:0, and 16:0, have been tra-ditionally associated with increased level of cholesterol inblood stream and, consequently, with coronary heart disease(CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), their deleteriousmetabolic effects are questioned at present. A recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies carried out by Siri-Tarinoet al. [11] found no significant evidence for concluding thatSFA are associated with increased risk of coronary heartdisease or cardiovascular disease. Nevertheless, there is stillan important emphasis in reducing SFA since the beneficialeffects associated with the substitution of SFAwith n-3 PUFA[12].

More recently, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and longchain PUFA (n-3) contents, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) anddocosahexaenoic acid (DHA), have also become imperativedue to their multiple healthy metabolic effects, like reductionof the risk of cardiovascular disease, proper brain and visualdevelopment in fetal life, and maintenance of neural andvisual tissues throughout life [13–17]. Recent studies havestated a beneficial effect of the n-3 fatty acid 𝛼-linolenic acid,ALA, at the low dose of 4.4 g per day, a perfectly achievabledose by means of regular consumption of ALA-rich sources[18].

Beef and other ruminant products constitute importantdietary source of CLA, especially cis-9, trans-11 isomer,identified as an important health promoter factor includingantitumoral and anticarcinogenic activities [19]. Biologicaleffects have been widely studied also for the trans-10, cis-12 isomer, identified as an important antiobesity factor [20].Beef also contains trans-fatty acids (TFA), being vaccenicacid, trans-11 18:1, its most representative one. An intake ofTFA lower than 1% of dietary energy has been recommended[21]. Nevertheless, in the last years, TFA became also veryimportant since its potential protective properties against thedevelopment of coronary heart diseases [19].Thus, at present,a great deal of effort is being done in differentiating naturalfrom industrial TFA.

2.2. Factors That Modify Beef Lipid Content and FA Profile.Fat content and FA composition of beef may differ accordingto breed or genotype, the feeding background, and themuscleconsidered. Although beef usually has a P : S ratio around 0.1,its ratio n-6 : n-3 PUFA is particularly beneficial (around 2),especially from animals fed with grass containing high levelsof PUFA n-3 [22]. Both, genetic and nutritional approacheshave been widely studied in relation to FA profile of beef.In this regard, it is recognized that genetic factors providesmaller differences than nutritional ones [23]. Genetic factorsreflect differences in gene expressions of enzymes involved infatty acid synthesis. Thus, a particular relationship betweenfatness and FA profile has been stated [13]. As the content ofSFA andMUFA increases with increasing fatness, the relativeproportion of PUFA and the consequent P : S ratio decrease

The Scientific World Journal 3

with it. Hence, lean meat with low fat content, less than 1%,would contain a healthier P : S ratio than high fat meat [24].

Regarding the effect of the diet, that is, the productionsystem, it has been demonstrated that ruminants meatcontains beneficial ratio of n-6 : n-3 PUFA, that is, below 4,especially when they had consumed grass-based diets [22].Beef from pasture-finished steers has greater levels of n-3PUFAwhen compared to concentrate-finished steers [25, 26].Similar results were also found in pasture-finished bulls [27].Moreover, fresh and conserved (silage and hay) grass presentsdifferent effects on the n-3 PUFA deposition into the muscle.Thus, higher levels of n-3 PUFA in the muscle of cattle fedfresh grass has been demonstrated than cattle fed hay [13]. Anoverall and compact view about the effect of different diets,from different production systems, is shown in Table 1. In thistable, data regarding lipid content of LD muscle and its FAcomposition is compiled as a general example of the majoreffects of animal feeding on beef quality.

It is important to remark thatmuscle lipids are distributedin different compartments or fractions. Thus, neutral frac-tion, usually characterized by high proportions of SFA andmonounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), is located along themuscle fibres, in the interfascicular area, and in cytosolicdroplets into the muscle cells. This FA fraction is easilyinfluenced by diet composition despite the saturation occur-ring at ruminal level. On the other hand, the polar fraction,composed by phospholipids and usually characterized byhigh proportion of PUFA, is located in the cell membranes.Due to the higher proportion of phospholipids, geneticallylean breeds show higher levels of PUFA [34].This FA fractioncan be less influenced by diet and its content is independent ofthe total fat content [35].Moreover, the fatty acid compositionmight also display a muscle effect, since muscle fiber typecan affect fatty acid composition: red, oxidative, muscles havehigher proportion of phospholipids and, therefore, containhigher levels of PUFA than white, glycolytic, muscles [22].In this regard, Enser et al. [36] have reported a P : S ratioin Gluteo biceps muscle, oxidative, red muscle, significantlyhigher than in the whiter Longissimus muscle in grass-fedsteers.

2.3. Influence of FA Profile on Beef Quality Traits. Fatty acidsare also involved in several physicochemical properties ofmeat, contributing not only to the nutritional attributes ofbeef but also to the physicochemical ones. Thus, differentfatty acids (saturated or unsaturated) show different meltingpoints, which in turn affects the firmness or softness ofmeat fat. On the other hand, the presence and degree ofdouble bonds in the fatty acid structure affect the oxidationsusceptibility, which in turn regulates the shelf life of meat[22].

Marbling fat, total fatty acid content in muscle, has beenlong recognized as a quality factor of meat. It has been alsopositively associated with juiciness and tenderness, althoughits contribution is indirect. It has been proposed that neutrallipids in fat cells could have a physical effect in separatingmuscle fiber bundles. It has been proposed that lipids couldalso retain water in the muscle structure leading to increasedwater holding capacity and associated juiciness [22].

Table 1: Lipid content and fatty acid composition reported of beefmuscle from steers (British and crossbred) finished in different andcontrasting production systems.

Production system ReferencePasture Supplementation Feedlot

IMF (%)

2.86 b 4.09 a 3.85 a [25]4.96 4.52 [28]2.83 [29]0.98 b 1.30 a [30]2.80 b 4.40 a [31]2.12 b 3.61 a [32]

SFA (% totalFA)

38.40 a 37.85 a 35.33 b [25]46.61 45.80 [28]43.1 [29]38.76 39.27 [30]48.80 a 45.10 b [31]42.45 b 43.43 a [32]

MUFA (%total FA)

37.74 b 40.89 a 40.77 a [25]41.63 37.35 [28]30.2 [29]

24.69 b 34.99 a [30]42.50 b 46.20 a [31]43.87 b 47.89 a [32]

PUFA (%total FA)

7.95 a, b 7.50 b 9.31 a [25]5.58 b 10.12 a [28]8.73 [29]

28.99 a 19.06 b [30]3.41 a 2.77 b [31]

PUFA/SFA0.21 b 0.20 b 0.27 a [25]0.12 b 0.23 a [28]0.20 [29]

n-6/n-3

1.72 c 3.77 b 10.38 a [25]2.47 b 5.50 a [28]1.47 [29]1.77 b 8.99 a [30]2.78 b 13.60 a [31]1.96 b 3.57 a [32]

CLA (% totalFA)

0.72 a 0.58 b 0.31 c [25]0.33 [33]

IMF: intramuscular fat; SFA: saturated fatty acid; MUFA: monounsaturatedfatty acid; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acid; CLA: conjugated linoleic acid.a, b, c mean values in row with different letters differ statistically (𝑃 < 0.05).

Flavour development during cooking also depends on thePUFA content ofmeat fat which leads the volatile compoundsgeneration. Nevertheless, the desirable increase of PUFA inbeef has the disadvantage of increasing the susceptibilityto oxidation. In this regard, it has been stated that lipidoxidation is themajor cause of colour, flavour, and nutritionalvalue deterioration in meat [37]. Consequently, much efforthas been made to protect these unsaturated structures bymeans of antioxidants elements like vitamin E [38–40].


Regarding this issue, it has been demonstrated that pastureproduction systems not only increase n-3 PUFA in beefbut also increase vitamin E, 𝛼-tocopherol, carotenoids, andflavonoids, extending its lipid stability and colour shelf life[39, 41]. Grain production systems may improve the beefcolour stability and shelf life by supplementing the animaldiet with natural antioxidants, that is, 𝛼-tocopherol [42].

Cooking procedures may affect the fat content and FAprofile of both pasture- and feedlot-finished beef in a similarway [30]. Interesting data regarding the effect of cookingmethods upon the nutritional quality of beef intramuscularfat has also been recently published. The effect of boiling,microwaving, and grilling on the composition andnutritionalquality of beef intramuscular fat has been investigated.Results obtained demonstrated that the content of totallipids increased, by means of a concentration effect, withthe cooking time and internal temperature reached [30].The major changes in FA composition resulted in higherpercentages of SFA and MUFA and lower levels of PUFAin cooked meat. CLA had revealed great stability to thermalprocesses [30].

3. Proteins

3.1. Importance of Proteins in the Diet. Meat muscle compo-sition is approximately 19% proteins, being 11.5% structuralproteins (myofibrillar), 5.5% soluble sarcoplasmic proteins,and 2% connective tissue (collagen and elastin), and 2.5%fat, dispersed among protein fibers [43]. The protein contentis modified in cooked meat due to water loss through thecooking process. These proteins become highly digestible(94%) [44].

Paddon-Jones and Leidy [45] stated that red meat is asource of high quality protein and highly bioavailable iron toenhance vitality. Several authors have reported the ability ofhigh quality proteins to promote weight loss, prevent weightgain and weight regain in adults [46–48], reduce fat mass[49], and protect against reductions in lean body mass [50–53]. Losses in high quality protein, especially in older adults,cause sarcopenia (degenerative loss of skeletal muscle mass)and sarcopenic obesity by replacing lost skeletal muscle intofat [45, 54, 55]. Consequently, increasing consumption of highquality protein from middle age has been recommended inorder to maintain the quality of life associated with adequatemuscle mass. Protein content would maintain or increase fat-free mass by favouring a stimulatory effect on muscle proteinanabolism in humans [45, 54–56].

Weight loss diets contain higher amounts of protein,which have been shown to be more effective compared tostandard protein diets. Moreover, several authors showeda greater overall satisfaction in terms of food palatability,pleasure, and enjoyment in subjects consuming high proteindiets as compared to lower protein diets [57–60].

3.2. Role of Aminoacids in Human Health. Aminoacids andbioactive compounds are very important molecules to pre-vent muscle-wasting diseases, that is, sarcopenia, to reducecalorie intake (metabolic syndrome prevention), to control

blood pressure homeostasis, via ACE-inhibitory componentsfrom the connective tissue, and to maintain the functionalityof intestinal environment, through nucleotides and nucleo-sides of meat [61].

Aminoacids like leucine, isoleucine, and valine are essen-tial for protein synthesis. Leucine supplementation has beenshown to increase muscle protein synthesis in older adults[62]. Furthermore, protein ingestion strongly increases mus-cle protein synthesis rates, effect mainly attributed to thestimulatory effect of essential aminoacids [63]. Beef alsocontains high amounts of glutamic acid/glutamine (16.5%),arginine, alanine, and aspartic acid.

Phillips [64] reported that senescent muscle is less sen-sitive to the anabolic properties of aminoacids. Leucine hasbeen reported to stimulate muscle protein synthesis in aninsulin dependent and independent manner. Consequently,it has been suggested that increasing the leucine content ofmeals in the elderly could compensate the decreased muscleprotein synthetic response to food intake.

Beef is also rich in branched-chain aminoacids, leadingto further metabolic effects. Thus, comparing beef withsoya, Phillips [64] has reported greater myofibrillar proteinssynthesis, both at rest and after performance of resistanceexercise, in those individuals submitted to beef feeding.Moreover, Bhutta [65] stated that meat proteins provide allessential aminoacids (lysine, threonine, methionine, pheny-lalanine, tryptophan, leucine, isoleucine, and valine) with nolimiting aminoacid.

3.3. Biopeptides. Bioactive peptides are sequences of 2–30 aminoacids that impart a positive health effect to theconsumer when ingested, playing an important role in theprevention of diseases associated with the development ofmetabolic syndrome and mental health diseases [66].

Meat contains several proteins and peptides with impor-tant physiological activities. It has been demonstrated thatcollagen has a positive influence on the delivery and bioac-tivity of bone morphogenic protein-2 and ectopic boneformation, enhancing bone healing [67]. Other varieties ofbeneficial effects on health by meat peptides include antihy-pertensive, antioxidant, antithrombotic, anticancer, immunemodulatory, and antimicrobial activities. In the last years, thepossibility of obtaining bioactive peptides frommeat proteinsbymeans of different procedures like hydrolysis, cooking, andfermentation has been explored [68].

Some peptides are inactive in the sequence of the parentprotein but may have a positive effect once released. A varietyof bioactive peptides are naturally occurring in animals or aregenerated post mortem by endogenous enzymes in meat and[69].

At present, there is insufficient information about thephysiological functions of beef peptides in both animal andhuman models. Thus, the study of the beef proteins asprecursors of functional biopeptides, in order to developfunctional foods and nutraceuticals, remains a great issue tobe explored [70].

Although several bioactive compounds in meat, carno-sine, anserine, and L-carnitine, have been recently studied,


the effect of beef production systems on these bioactivecompounds remains almost unexplored. Recent studies [71]demonstrated that preslaughter management can affect thebeef content of anserine and carnosine, both in exten-sive (pasture-based) and in intensive (grain-based) systems.Carnosine beef content also displayed a production system-associated behaviour, with higher levels in pastured-basedbeef when compared to intensive-based beef [71]. However,Arihara [72] reported that there are still some obstacles in thedevelopment andmarketing of new functionalmeat productsas these products are unconventional.

4. The Argentinean Perspective ofBeef Production Systems andImplications on Meat Quality

4.1. Argentinean Livestock Production Systems. Argentina is awell-known producer of pasture-fed beef. Traditionally, beefproductionwas based on low-input systems, which combinedgrazing complemented with grain as energy supplements toprovide pasture-finished beef. However, during the last twodecades, Argentinean beef production has evolved into adiversification and intensification process of grazing systemsas a result of cash crop expansion caused by the increase ingrains prices.

In Argentina, the process of producing beef can beexplained as divided into two main activities: (a) cow-calf onmarginal lands and (b) steers growing and fattening on bettersoils [73]. At present, one-third of the cow-calf farmers retaincalves and rear themon the same farmon grain supplementedpastures or in confinement until slaughter. The remainingtwo-thirds still produce calves on extensive cow-calf systems[74].

In the last years, less than 2% of rearing and fattening cat-tle farms of tempered regions practice pure grazing systems.Most farmers combine grain croppingwith livestock inmixedsystems. A field is normally kept with a legume-based peren-nial pasture for a 4–6-year period, followed by a period ofannual forages and grain cropping. Rotation schemes dependon several factors, like soil quality, technology availability, andeconomics competence.

More than 70% of beef produced in Argentina is stillproduced in pasture-based systems, most widely spread inthe temperate areas [74]. Those systems are the least energyintensive and rely on adjusted forage chains depending onrainfall, temperature, and soils quality. In rotation withgrain cropping, forage chains include legume-based pastures(primarily alfalfa) and small-grain winter annuals crops (rye,oats, ryegrass, and triticale). Most cattle fattening farmersmake a strategic use of energy supplement when necessary,being cereals grain (corn and sorghum) the most commonsupplement.More recently, confinement feeding at final stageof fattening has been introduced by some farmers.

Overall average daily gains of pasture-finished steers arein the 600 to 700 g/day range on 100%grazing systems. Slowercycles on pure grazing systems have lower average bodyweight daily gain and include feeding restriction in winterfollowed by compensatory growth of cattle in spring and

summer. Growth continues atmoderate rates during a secondwinter period, targeting full finishing the following spring orsummer.

Confinement feeding was lately introduced as strategyto remove animals from grain cropping lands. Confinementfeeding takes place at the end of grazing periods (finishinglots) or previous to the initiation of pasture programs, stockerphase, also called “beginning lots.” Feedlots aremore efficientin terms of land occupation but much less in terms ofenvironmental impact, competition with human diet, andmeat safety.

A brief scheme of the Argentinean beef productionplatform mentioned above is presented in Figure 1 (adaptedfrom [75]).

4.2. Argentinean Market of Beef. In Argentina, market pref-erences for freshness and tenderness led the adjustments forbeef quality. Argentinean consumers have a preference forfresh and lean beef. Additionally, the market does not havea taste for aged beef and most packing plants geared to thedomestic market are not prepared for stocking beef beyondweek. Therefore, beef tenderness has been accomplished byprocessing young and light, early maturing, easy fatteninganimals with body condition scores of 3–5.

The increasing world interest in tenderness, flavour, andlipid profiles has pushed research nationwide. Research haslargely focused on attributes of beef generated on differentfeeding and grazing strategies. Previous studies [76–78]had reported that pasture-finished beef is less tender thanconcentrate-finished. Nevertheless, Argentinean studies [28,79] have not detected such differences, by means of WBshear force, between grain and grass-fed beef finished to asimilar fatness endpoint. Similarly, Realini et al. [80] foundno differences between steaks from concentrate- and pasture-finished beef in Uruguay, despite differences found in carcassweight, fatness, and temperature during chilling. Likewise,Duckett et al. [81], French et al. [82], and Mandell et al.[83] found no differences in WB shear force ratings betweenfeedlot-fed and pasture-fed beef in the US, when animalswere finished to similar age or fatness.

Bearing in mind that the type of forage could affect beefcharacteristics, research on pasture finishing on different for-ages has been carried out. Pordomingo et al. [29, 84] finishedsteers on winter annuals (triticale, cereal rye, and wheat) oralfalfa to assess beef characteristics. The authors reportedno effects of forage source on WB shear force, back-fatthickness, or hot carcass yield. Alfalfa-finished animals hadin average more IMF than the grass-finished ones. Wheat-finished animals had a similar content to alfalfa-finishedones. Cereal rye yielded the animals with less desirableprofiles comparedwith the other treatments.Themeat qualityparameters of shear force, panel tenderness scores, and colourwere similar to those reported for feedlot-finished animals inother studies, in both Argentina [28, 85] and Uruguay [80].

Argentinean research suggests that pasture-finished beefis likely to be leaner and lower in cholesterol concentrationsthan feedlot beef [85–90]. Conversely, Rosso et al. [86] hadreported the opposite for IMF content, considering animals


Improvedperennialpasture

Feedlotfinishing

Pasture finishing

FeedlotHayNative rangebackgrounding backgrounding

backgroundingbackgrounding

Winter anualpasture

backgrounding

Stockerbackgrounding

strategies

Grazing finishing

Weaning

Traditional weaning(6 months of age, Early weaning

(3 months of age,

Finishing phase

range of harvestweights)

Stockerbackgrounding

strategies

120- to 200-dayperiod)

150 to 200 kg live weight) to 100 kg live weight)

(300kg to 380–450

(from 150–200 kg to300kg live weight,

Figure 1: Illustrative platform of main beef production systems in Argentina.

of different age in their study. In turn, Volpi Lagreca et al.[28] reported no differences in IMF and back-fat content infeedlot- versus pasture-finished animals when fattened to asimilar back-fat thickness and live weight endpoint.

Martınez Ferrer et al. [91] reported a trend (𝑃 = 0.11)towards a higher proportion of SFA in pasture-based beef,due to an increase in C18:0 (𝑃 = 0.047), C14:0 (𝑃 =0.12), and C16:0 (𝑃 = 0.37), from steers finished at 10mmof subcutaneous fat depth. Most studies point out that theproportion of SFA would not be altered by feedlot fattening.Consistently, the highest PUFAconcentrationswere observedin pasture-based beef [29, 79, 85]. Volpi Lagreca et al.[28] detected greater PUFA n-6 concentrations in feedlotcompared with pasture finishing (Table 1).

Most Argentinean studies which have finished steers ona starch-based diet [28, 79, 85, 90–93] reported greater n-6/n-3 ratios compared with pasture diet (Table 1). It has beenalso demonstrated that the addition of supplemental grain onpasture systems would increase this ratio. On the other hand,studies of Martınez Ferrer et al. [90, 94] and Depetris et al.[95] pointed out that pasture grazing strongly ameliorates theeffects of starch feeding on lipids profiles.

Carryover effects of supplementation [96] or feedlotbackgrounding [29] on lipids profiles of pasture-finishedcattle could be expected. The last authors compared feedlotbackgrounding on diets with increasing content of hay withpasture backgrounding on pasture-finished heifers. Resultsdemonstrated that grazing during 132 days after feedlot back-grounding removed only partially the effect of the starch-rich

feedlot diets on the fatty acid profile of Longissimus dorsi ofheifers. Omega 3 fatty acid concentrations remained higherfor animals backgrounded on pasture or a 100% hay diet,compared to 40 and 70% hay diets.

Regarding CLA levels, Latimori et al. [79, 85] andMartınez Ferrer et al. [90, 94] have reported increased levels(3-fold) of CLA in pasture-finished beef, when comparedto feedlot-finished beef of steers. Thus, while CLA con-centration in IMF from animals grown and finished onalfalfa pastures is likely to be in the range of 0.7–0.8%,grain supplementation on pasture would tend to reduceCLA content. Nevertheless, this CLA content of beef woulddouble the level when compared to beef from grain or cornsilage-based feedlot diets. Based on this evidence, it couldbe suggested that CLA content of beef would not be greatlyaffected by limited energy supplementation of grazing cattleon leguminous pastures.

Regarding the effect of feedlot feeding during a stockerprogram, Pordomingo et al. [29] noted that pasture-finishedheifers, backgrounded in feedlot during 104 days, resultedin CLA beef contents below 0.5%. No differential effectsgiven to energy content of the feedlot-fed diet were detected.Results from this study suggest that systems that pursue CLAenriched beef would need to consider the nature of the dietfrom the early stages of the growing-finishing program.

5. Conclusions

Adequate management of beef production systems wouldconstitute one of the major tools to improve beef quality


in a sustainable way. Argentinean production systems maypromote food security by means of animal feeding mainlybased on feeds not used in human nutrition. They havedemonstrated an improvement of beef healthiness, minimiz-ing several negative effects associated with beef consumption,while containing the environmental impact.

Our thought is that research efforts must be stressed todeepen the current knowledge regarding the contribution ofanimal production systems to maintain beef safety and itsbiological composition during longer periods of time.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This review paper is a product of an ongoing discussionbetween the authors based on their research experience andknowledge published in recent literature, under an interdisci-plinary sight given by their expertise. Financial and materialsupport for the writing of this paper has been provided byNational Institute of Agricultural Technology, INTA, andMoron University (UM) from Argentina.

References

[1] G. Paredi, M.-A. Sentandreu, A. Mozzarelli, S. Fadda, K. Hol-lung, and A. M. de Almeida, “Muscle and meat: new horizonsand applications for proteomics on a farm to fork perspective,”Journal of Proteomics, vol. 88, pp. 58–82, 2013.

[2] L. Wyness, “Nutritional aspects of red meat in the diet,” inNutritional and Climate Change: Major Issues Confronting theMeat Industry, J. D. Wood and C. Rowlings, Eds., pp. 1–22,Nottingham University Press, 2013.

[3] W. Zhang, S. Xiao, H. Samaraweera, E. J. Lee, and D. U. Ahn,“Improving functional value of meat products,” Meat Science,vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 15–31, 2010.

[4] J.-F. Hocquette, R. Botreau, B. Picard, A. Jacquet, D.W. Pethick,and N. D. Scollan, “Review: opportunities for predicting andmanipulating beef quality,”Meat Science, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 197–209, 2012.

[5] C. Thomas, N. Scollan, and D. Moran, “A road map for the beefindustry to meet the challenge of climate change—a discussiondocument,” Animal Frontiers, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 6–9, 2014.

[6] K. Tontisirin, G. Nantel, and L. Bhattacharjee, “Food-basedstrategies to meet the challenges of micronutrient malnutritionin the developing world,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society,vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 243–250, 2002.

[7] G. H. Zhou, X. L. Xu, and Y. Liu, “Preservation technologies forfresh meat—a review,” Meat Science, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 119–128,2010.

[8] T. Aymerich, P. A. Picouet, and J. M. Monfort, “Decontamina-tion technologies for meat products,” Meat Science, vol. 78, no.1-2, pp. 114–129, 2008.

[9] World Health Organization, Diet, Nutrition and Prevention ofChronic Diseases, vol. 916 of Report of the Joint WHO/FAOExpert Consultation, World Health Organization, Geneva,Switzerland, 2003.

[10] N. D. Scollan, D. Dannenberger, K. Nuernberg et al., “Enhanc-ing the nutritional and health value of beef lipids and theirrelationship with meat quality,” Meat Science, vol. 97, no. 3, pp.384–394, 2014.

[11] P. W. Siri-Tarino, Q. Sun, F. B. Hu, and R. M. Krauss, “Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the associationof saturated fat with cardiovascular disease,” The AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 535–546, 2010.

[12] P. W. Siri-Tarino, Q. Sun, F. B. Hu, and R. M. Krauss, “Saturatedfat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease,” The AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 502–509, 2010.

[13] N. D. Scollan, P. Costa, K. G. Hallett, G. R. Nute, J. D. Wood,and R. I. Richardson, “The fatty acid composition of muscle fatand relationships to meat quality in Charolais steers: influenceof level of red clover in the diet,” in Proceedings of the BritishSociety of Animal Science, Winter, p. 23, BSAS, 2006.

[14] G. Barcelo-Coblijn and E. J. Murphy, “Alpha-linolenic acid andits conversion to longer chain n-3 fatty acids: benefits for humanhealth and a role in maintaining tissue n−3 fatty acid levels,”Progress in Lipid Research, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 355–374, 2009.

[15] P. T. Garcia and J. J. Casal, “Effect of dietary plant lipids onconjugated linoleic acid (CLA) concentrations in beef and lambmeats,” in Soybean—Bio-Active Compounds, H. A. El-Shemy,Ed., pp. 135–159, InTech, Vienna, Austria, 2013.

[16] P. T. Garcia, “Metabolism of 𝛼- linolenic acid (ALA) in meatanimals,” in Soybean and Nutrition, H. El-Shemy, Ed., pp. 349–368, InTech, 2011.

[17] E. Lopez-Huertas, “Health effects of oleic acid and long chainomega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) enriched milks. A reviewof intervention studies,” Pharmacological Research, vol. 61, no.3, pp. 200–207, 2010.

[18] S. Egert, F. Kannenberg, V. Somoza, H. F. Erbersdobler, andU. Wahrburg, “Dietary &-linolenic acid, EPA, and DHA havedifferential effects on LDL fatty acid composition but similareffects on serum lipid profiles in normolipidemic humans,”Journal of Nutrition, vol. 139, no. 5, pp. 861–868, 2009.

[19] A. M. Salter, “Dietary fatty acids and cardiovascular disease,”Animal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 163–171, 2013.

[20] M. A. Belury, “Conjugated linoleic acids in type 2 diabetesmellitus: implications and potential mechanisms,” in Advancesin Conjugated Linoleic Acid Research, J. L. Sebedio, W. W.Christie, and R. O. Adlof, Eds., vol. 2, pp. 267–281, AOCA Press,Champaign, Ill, USA, 2003.

[21] W. C. Willet, “The scientific basis for TFA regulation—is it suf-ficient?” in Proceedings of the 1st International Symposisium onTrans Fatty Acids and Health, p. 24, Rungstedgaard, Denmark,September 2005.

[22] J. D. Wood, R. I. Richardson, G. R. Nute et al., “Effects of fattyacids on meat quality: a review,”Meat Science, vol. 66, no. 1, pp.21–32, 2004.

[23] S. De Smet, K. Raes, and D. Demeyer, “Meat fatty acid composi-tion as affected by fatness and genetic factors: a review,” AnimalResearch, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 81–98, 2004.

[24] K. Raes, S. De Smet, and D. Demeyer, “Effect of double-muscling in Belgium Blue Young bulls on the intramuscularfatty acid composition with emphasis on conjugated linoleicacid and polyunsaturated fatty acids,” Animal Science, vol. 73,pp. 253–260, 2001.

[25] P. T. Garcia, N. A. Pensel, A. M. Sancho et al., “Beef lipidsin relation to animal breed and nutrition in Argentina,” MeatScience, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 500–508, 2008.


[26] P. French, E. G. O’Riordan, F. J. Monahan, P. J. Caffrey, and A. P.Moloney, “Fatty acid composition of intramuscular triacylglyc-erols of fed autumn grass and concentrates,” Livestock Produc-tion Science, vol. 81, pp. 307–317, 2003.

[27] S. Lorenz, A. Buttner, K. Ender et al., “Influence of keepingsystem on fatty acid composition in the longissimus muscle ofbulls and odorants formed after pressure-cooking,” EuropeanFood Research Technology, vol. 214, no. 2, pp. 112–118, 2002.

[28] G. Volpi Lagreca, A. J. Pordomingo,M. Alende, and P. T. Garcıa,Grasa Intramuscular y Perfıl de Acidos Grasos de la Carne deNovillos con Diferentes Estrategias de Recrıa o Terminacion.Avances en Calidad de Carne Bovina. Implicancias de la Ali-mentacion, la Genetica y el Manejo, vol. 92, Publicacion TecnicaINTA EEA Anguil, La Pampa, Argentine, 2013.

[29] A. J. Pordomingo, T. P. Garcıa, and G. V. Lagreca, “Effect offeeding treatment during the backgrounding phase of beefproduction from pasture on: II. Longissimus muscle proximatecomposition, cholesterol and fatty acids,”Meat Science, vol. 90,no. 4, pp. 947–955, 2012.

[30] C. M. M. Alfaia, S. P. Alves, A. F. Lopes et al., “Effect of cookingmethods on fatty acids, conjugated isomers of linoleic acid andnutritional quality of beef intramuscular fat,”Meat Science, vol.84, no. 4, pp. 769–777, 2010.

[31] J. M. Leheska, L. D. Thompson, J. C. Howe et al., “Effectsof conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrientcomposition of beef,” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 86, no. 12,pp. 3575–3585, 2008.

[32] E. N. Ponnampalam, N. J. Mann, and A. J. Sinclair, “Effect offeeding systems on omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acidand trans fatty acids in Australian beef cuts: potential impact onhuman health,” Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 15,no. 1, pp. 21–29, 2006.

[33] V. Muchenje, A. Hugo, K. Dzama, M. Chimonyo, P. E. Strydom,and J. G. Raats, “Cholesterol levels and fatty acid profiles of beeffrom three cattle breeds raised on natural pasture,” Journal ofFoodComposition andAnalysis, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 354–358, 2009.

[34] A. Braghieri, G. F. Cifuni, A. Girolami, A. M. Riviezzi, I.Marsico, and F. Napolitano, “Chemical, physical and sensoryproperties of meat from pure and crossbred Podolian bulls atdifferent ageing times,”Meat Science, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 681–689,2005.

[35] K. Raes, S. De Smet, and D. Demeyer, “Effect of dietary fattyacids on incorporation of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acidsand conjugated linoleic acid in lamb, beef and pork meat: areview,” Animal Feed Science and Technology, vol. 113, no. 1–4,pp. 199–221, 2004.

[36] M. Enser, K. G. Hallett, B. Hewett, G. A. J. Fursey, J. D. Wood,and G. Harrington, “Fatty acid content and composition of UKbeef and lamb muscle in relation to production system andimplications for human nutrition,” Meat Science, vol. 49, no. 3,pp. 329–341, 1998.

[37] Y. F. Li and S. M. Liu, “Reducing lipid peroxidation for improv-ing colour stability of beef and lamb: on-farm considerations,”Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 92, no. 4, pp.719–729, 2012.

[38] A. Yang, M. C. Lanari, M. Brewster, and R. K. Tume, “Lipidstability and meat colour of beef from pasture- and grain-fedcattle with or without vitamin E supplement,”Meat Science, vol.60, no. 1, pp. 41–50, 2002.

[39] A. M. Descalzo and A. M. Sancho, “A review of natural antiox-idants and their effects on oxidative status, odor and quality of

fresh beef produced in Argentina,” Meat Science, vol. 79, no. 3,pp. 423–436, 2008.

[40] C. A. Daley, A. Abbott, P. S. Doyle, G. A. Nader, and S. Larson,“A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef,”Nutrition Journal, vol. 9, article 10, 2010.

[41] H. E.Warren, N.D. Scollan, G. R.Nute, S. I. Hughes, J. D.Wood,andR. I. Richardson, “Effects of breed and a concentrate or grasssilage diet on beef quality in cattle of 3 ages. II: meat stability andflavour,”Meat Science, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 270–278, 2008.

[42] R. T.Nassu,M. E. R.Dugan,M. Juarez, J. A. Basarab, V. S. Baron,and J. L. Aalhus, “Effect of 𝛼-tocopherol tissue levels on beefquality,” Animal, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 2010–2018, 2011.

[43] A. Bender, Meat and Meat Products in Human Nutrition inDeveloping Countries, Food and Nutrition Paper 53, AnimalProduction andHealth Division, Food andAgriculture Organi-zation ofThe United Nations, Rome, Italy, 1992, http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0562e/T0562E00.HTM.

[44] P. Williams, “Nutritional composition of red meat,”Nutrition &Dietetics, vol. 64, supplement 4, pp. S113–S119, 2007.

[45] D. Paddon-Jones and H. Leidy, “Dietary protein and musclein older persons,” Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition andMetabolic Care, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 5–11, 2014.

[46] B. J. Brehm andD.A.D’Alessio, “Benefits of high-proteinweightloss diets: enough evidence for practice?” Current Opinion inEndocrinology, Diabetes & Obesity, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 416–421,2008.

[47] T. L. Halton and F. B. Hu, “The effects of high protein diets onthermogenesis, satiety andweight loss: a critical review,” Journalof the American College of Nutrition, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 373–385,2004.

[48] M. S. Westerterp-Plantenga, A. Nieuwenhuizen, D. Tome, S.Soenen, andK. R.Westerterp, “Dietary protein, weight loss, andweight maintenance,” Annual Review of Nutrition, vol. 29, pp.21–41, 2009.

[49] U. Keller, “Dietary proteins in obesity and in diabetes,” Interna-tional Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research, vol. 81, no.2-3, pp. 125–133, 2011.

[50] M. J. Bopp, D. K. Houston, L. Lenchik, L. Easter, S. B.Kritchevsky, and B. J. Nicklas, “Lean mass loss is associatedwith low protein intake during dietary-induced weight lossin postmenopausal women,” Journal of the American DieteticAssociation, vol. 108, no. 7, pp. 1216–1220, 2008.

[51] R. F. Kushner and B. Doerfler, “Low-carbohydrate, high-proteindiets revisited,”Current Opinion in Gastroenterology, vol. 24, no.2, pp. 198–203, 2008.

[52] D. S. Weigle, P. A. Breen, C. C. Matthys et al., “A high-proteindiet induces sustained reductions in appetite, ad libitum caloricintake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diur-nal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations,” The AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 41–48, 2005.

[53] T. P. Wycherley, L. J. Moran, P. M. Clifton, M. Noakes, andG. D. Brinkworth, “Effects of energy-restricted high-protein,low-fat compared with standard-protein, low-fat diets: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,”The American Journalof Clinical Nutrition, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 1281–1298, 2012.

[54] D. Paddon-Jones and B. B. Rasmussen, “Dietary protein recom-mendations and theprevention of sarcopenia,” Current Opinionin Clinical Nutrition andMetabolic Care, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 86–90,2009.

[55] D. Paddon-Jones, K. R. Short, W. W. Campbell, E. Volpi, and R.R. Wolfe, “Role of dietary protein in the sarcopenia of aging,”


American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 1562S–1566S, 2008.

[56] T. A. Churchward-Venne, C. H. Murphy, T. M. Longland, andS. M. Phillips, “Role of protein and amino acids in promotinglean mass accretion with resistance exercise and attenuatinglean mass loss during energy deficit in humans,” Amino Acids,vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 231–240, 2013.

[57] D. K. Layman, E. Evans, J. I. Baum, J. Seyler, D. J. Erickson, andR.A. Boileau, “Dietary protein and exercise have additive effectson body composition during weight loss in adult women,”Journal of Nutrition, vol. 135, no. 8, pp. 1903–1910, 2005.

[58] D. K. Layman, E. M. Evans, D. Erickson et al., “A moderate-protein diet produces sustained weight loss and long-termchanges in body composition and blood lipids in obese adults,”Journal of Nutrition, vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 514–521, 2009.

[59] H. J. Leidy, N. S. Carnell, R. D. Mattes, and W. W. Campbell,“Higher protein intake preserves lean mass and satiety withweight loss in pre-obese and obese women,”Obesity, vol. 15, no.2, pp. 421–429, 2007.

[60] A.McConnon, G.W. Horgan, C. Lawton et al., “Experience andacceptability of diets of varying protein content and glycemicindex in an obese cohort: results from the Diogenes trial,”European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 990–995, 2013.

[61] J. F. Young, M. Therkildsen, B. Ekstrand et al., “Novel aspectsof health promoting compounds in meat,”Meat Science, vol. 95,no. 4, pp. 904–911, 2013.

[62] S. H. McNeill, “Inclusion of red meat in healthful dietarypatterns,”Meat Science, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 452–460, 2014.

[63] B. T. Wall, H. M. Hamer, A. de Lange et al., “Leucine co-ingestion improves post-prandial muscle protein accretion inelderly men,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 412–419, 2013.

[64] S. M. Phillips, “Nutrient-rich meat proteins in offsetting age-related muscle loss,” Meat Science, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 174–178,2012.

[65] Z. Bhutta, “Protein: digestibility and availability,” in Encyclope-dia of Human Nutrition, M. Sadler, J. Strain, and B. Caballero,Eds., pp. 1646–1656, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif, USA,1999.

[66] T. Lafarga andM. Hayes, “Bioactive peptides frommeat muscleand by-products: generation, functionality and application asfunctional ingredients,”Meat Science, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 227–239,2014.

[67] G. Bhakta, Z. X. H. Lim, B. Rai et al., “The influence of collagenand hyaluronanmatrices on the delivery and bioactivity of bonemorphogenetic protein-2 and ectopic bone formation,” ActaBiomaterialia, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 9098–9106, 2013.

[68] R. Di Bernardini, P. Harnedy, D. Bolton et al., “Antioxidantand antimicrobial peptidic hydrolysates from muscle proteinsources and by-products,” Food Chemistry, vol. 124, no. 4, pp.1296–1307, 2011.

[69] M. A. Sentandreu, G. Coulis, and A. Ouali, “Role of muscleendopeptidases and their inhibitors inmeat tenderness,” Trendsin Food Science & Technology, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 400–421, 2002.

[70] C. Chibuike and A. H. Udenigwe, “Meat proteome as source offunctional biopeptides,” FoodResearch International, vol. 54, no.1, pp. 1021–1032, 2013.

[71] V. Chamorro, A. A. Pazos, M. F. Godoy et al., “Histidinedipeptides and free amino acids of beef cattle raised undercontrasting feeding systems and pre-slaughter management,” inProceedings of the 60th International Congress of Meat Scienceand Technology, Maldonado, Uruguay, August 2014.

[72] K. Arihara, “Strategies for designing novel functional meatproducts,”Meat Science, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 219–229, 2006.

[73] D. H. Rearte, “Beef cattle production and meat quality ongrazing system in temperate region,” in Proceeding of the 8thWorld Conference on Animal Production, vol. 2 of SymposiumSeries, pp. 80–91, Seoul, South Korea, July 1998.

[74] A. J. Pordomingo, “Argentinean beef systems,” Stockman Grass-farmer Magazine, vol. 3, pp. 1–8, 2009.

[75] D. H. Rearte and A. J. Pordomingo, “The relevance of methaneemissions from beef production and the challenges of theArgentinean beef production platform,” Meat Science, vol. 98,no. 3, pp. 355–360, 2014.

[76] G. E. Mitchell, A. W. Reed, and S. E. Rogers, “Influence offeeding regimen on the sensory qualities and fatty acid contentsof beef steaks,” Journal of Food Science, vol. 56, pp. 1102–1103,1991.

[77] L. L. Bennett, A. C. Hammond, M. J. Williams et al., “Perfor-mance, carcass yield, and carcass quality characteristics of steersfinished on rhizome peanut (Arachis glabrata)-tropical grasspasture or concentrate,” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 73, pp.1881–1887, 1995.

[78] H. B. Hedrick, J. A. Paterson, A. G. Matches et al., “Carcass andpalatability characteristics of beef produced on pasture, corn-silage and corn grain,” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 57, no. 4,pp. 791–801, 1983.

[79] N. J. Latimori, A. M. Kloster, M. A. Amigone, P. T. Garcıa,F. J. Carduza, and N. A. Pensel, “Calidad de la carne bovinasegun genotipo y sistema de alimentacion,” Revista Argentinade Produccion Animal, vol. 25, supplement 1, pp. 365–367, 2005.

[80] C. E. Realini, S. K. Duckett, G. W. Brito, M. D. Rizza, andD. de Mattos, “Effect of pasture vs. concentrate feeding withor without antioxidants on carcass characteristics, fatty acidcomposition, and quality of Uruguayan beef,”Meat Science, vol.66, no. 3, pp. 567–577, 2004.

[81] S. K. Duckett, J. P. S. Neel, R. N. Sonon Jr., J. P. Fontenot, W.M. Clapham, and G. Scaglia, “Effects of winter stocker growthrate and finishing system on: II. Ninth–tenth–eleventh-ribcomposition, muscle color, and palatability,” Journal of AnimalScience, vol. 85, no. 10, pp. 2691–2698, 2007.

[82] P. French, C. Stanton, F. Lawless et al., “Fatty acid composition,including conjugated linoleic acid, of intramuscular fat fromsteers offered grazed grass, grass silage, or concentrate baseddiets,” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 78, no. 11, pp. 2849–2855,2000.

[83] I. B. Mandell, J. G. Buchanan-Smith, and C. P. Campbell,“Effects of forage vs grain feeding on carcass characteristics,fatty acid composition, and beef quality in Limousin-crosssteers when time on feed is controlled,” Journal of AnimalScience, vol. 76, no. 10, pp. 2619–2630, 1998.

[84] A. J. Pordomingo, G.Grigioni, F. Carduza, andG.Volpi Lagreca,“Effect of feeding treatment during the backgrounding phaseof beef production from pasture on: I. Animal performance,carcass and meat quality,”Meat Science, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 939–946, 2012.

[85] N. J. Latimori, A. M. Kloster, P. T. Garcıa, F. J. Carduza, G.Grigioni, and N. A. Pensel, “Diet and genotype effects on thequality index of beef produced in the Argentine Pampeanaregion,”Meat Science, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 463–469, 2008.

[86] O.Rosso, P. T.Garcıa, andC.Machado,Modelos experimentalesde engorde de novillos y su efecto sobre la ganancia de peso,parametros sanguıneos, calidad de la res y niveles de grasa


intramuscular y colesterol en carne. Informe tecnico cartaacuerdo INTAA-ACREA-Facultad de Ciencias VeterinariasUNNE, 1998.

[87] V. Schindler, M. E. Cossu, G. Trinchero, J. J. Grigera Naon,F. Canosa, and L. Santa Coloma, “Effect of feeding system ondaily gain of steers, fat and cholesterol content of beef,” inProceedings of the 46th International Congress of Meat Scienceand Technology, pp. 171–172, 2000.

[88] V. Schindler de Avila, L. Pruzzo, D. Arieu, and L. F. de SantaColoma, “Evaluacion de terneza de reses de novillos Herefordbajo distintos modelos de invernada,” Revista Argentina deProduccion Animal, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 351–352, 2003.

[89] J. Martınez Ferrer, E. Ustarroz, G. Teira, F. Perlo, P. Bonato,and O. Tisocco, “Efecto del sistema de alimentacion sobrelacalidad de carne bovina. 1. Caracterısticas sensoriales,”RevistaArgentina de Produccion Animal, vol. 26, supplement 1, pp. 387–388, 2006.

[90] J. Martınez Ferrer, E. Ustarroz, G. Teira, F. Perlo, P. Bonato,and O. Tisocco, “Efecto del sistema de alimentacion sobrelacalidad de carne bovina. 2. Caracterısticas fısicoquımicas,”Revista Argentina de Produccion Animal, vol. 26, no. S1, pp. 388–389, 2006.

[91] J. Martınez Ferrer, E. Ustarroz, C. G. Ferrayoli, and D. Alomar,“The effects of grazing intensification, silage or grain baseddiets for beef production in sub-humid Argentina on steerperformance and meat fatty acid composition,” in Utilisationof Grazed Grass in Temperate Animal Systems. Proceedings of aSatellite Workshop of the 20th International Grassland Congress,July 2005, Cork, Ireland, J. J. Murphy, Ed., p. 253, 2005.

[92] M. E. Cossu, L. Pruzzo, G. Trinchero, F. Canosa, J. J. Grigera Na,and L. Santa Coloma, “Fatty acid composition on longissimusmuscle of steers fattened under different feeding regimes,” inProceedingsof the 46th International Congress of Meat Scienceand Technology, pp. 178–179, 2000.

[93] P. T. Garcıa, N. A. Pensel, N. J. Latimori, A. M. Kloster, M.A. Amigone, and J. J. Casal, “Intramuscular lipids in steersunder different grass and grain regimen,” FleischwirtschaftInternational, vol. 1, pp. 27–31, 2005.

[94] J. Martınez Ferrer, E. Ustarroz, C. G. Ferrayoli, M. A. Brunetti,J. Simondi, and M. de Leon, “Concentracion de acidolinoleicoconjugado (c9,t11CLA) y perfil de acidos grasos en la carnedenovillos sometidos a diferentes regımenes de alimentacion,”Revista Argentina de Produccion Animal, vol. 24, supplement 1,pp. 13–15, 2004.

[95] G. Depetris, F. Santini, E. Pavan, E. Villarreal, and P. T. Garcıa,“Perfil de acidos grasos de la carne de vaquillonas con distintapastura y tiempo de suplementacion,” Revista Argentina deProduccion Animal, vol. 25, supplement 1, pp. 347–348, 2005.

[96] J. J. Grigera Naon, A. Schor, M. E. Cossu, V. Schindler deAvila, and F. Panella, “The effects of feeding by-products ofsoybeanharvest on the lipid composition and quality of beef,”in Proceedings of the 49th International Congress of Meat Scienceand Technology, pp. 133–134, 2003.

Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com

Veterinary MedicineJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Veterinary Medicine International



International Journal of

Microbiology


AnimalsJournal of

EcologyInternational Journal of


PsycheHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Evolutionary BiologyInternational Journal of


Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com

Applied &EnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Biotechnology Research International


Agronomy




Journal of Parasitology Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com


Volume 2014

Zoology

GenomicsInternational Journal of


InsectsJournal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


VirusesJournal of

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Cell BiologyInternational Journal of



Case Reports in Veterinary Medicine

Review Article A Contribution of Beef to Human Health: A...

Documents

Transcript of Review Article A Contribution of Beef to Human Health: A...